DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Who Killed the Electric Car?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 112, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/25/2007 03:27:59 PM · #1
I'm watching this right now, and it's amazing.

It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.

It also makes me realize the kind of difference, that we, as the "poor people" of the world can make if we were to put our collective shoulders against the shut door of the oppressive few who have slowly and quietly rose to the top of the food chain by taking advantage of us "poor people".

workers of the world, unite!

Message edited by author 2007-01-25 15:30:28.
01/25/2007 04:15:00 PM · #2
Um...you didn't answer the question. Who? Or are you asking us? Or, what the h@ll are you talking about? Was it photographed this killing of an eletric car?

Originally posted by bigalpha:

It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.


It's called capitalism.
01/25/2007 04:17:27 PM · #3
Nullix - It's a movie. And yes, it was photographed. GM smashes thousands of electric cars that were in perfect working order.
01/25/2007 04:40:38 PM · #4
in the spirit of equal time, i give you karl brauer from edmunds.com :

//blogs.edmunds.com/karl/239


01/25/2007 07:05:28 PM · #5
Originally posted by bigalpha:

Nullix - It's a movie. And yes, it was photographed. GM smashes thousands of electric cars that were in perfect working order.


The root cause of this destruction is called lawyers.
01/25/2007 07:55:27 PM · #6
Electricity still has to be generated and still produces huge amounts of pollution from coal fired power plants. The 'environmentalists' were largely responsible for making clean nuclear power prohibitively expensive. There ain't no free lunch!
As for GM's electric cars: had to have been major problems with the technology they were trying to use. Hybrid electric cars are alive and well.
01/25/2007 08:01:16 PM · #7
Originally posted by bigalpha:

I'm watching this right now, and it's amazing.

It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.

It also makes me realize the kind of difference, that we, as the "poor people" of the world can make if we were to put our collective shoulders against the shut door of the oppressive few who have slowly and quietly rose to the top of the food chain by taking advantage of us "poor people".

workers of the world, unite!
If 10 out of every million people on this planet wanted an electric car, which is about how many would actually put their money where their mouth is and buy one. 65,000 electirc cars would be sold and that wouldnt even be enough to turn a profit or be a sucesful car.

Ford almost killed the mustang because they only sold 100,000 one particular year.
01/25/2007 08:42:25 PM · #8
funny, I just saw the the other day...

Danny Devito on his electric car
01/25/2007 08:58:52 PM · #9
Good documentary! But there is a solution coming, Tesla Motors, with Larry & Sergin from google as investors. This will be the future, and Ford,GM etc doesn't stand a chance of buying or destory this company. It's here to stay, and it's the bringing us the future of cars.

01/25/2007 09:43:16 PM · #10
Originally posted by terje:

Good documentary! But there is a solution coming, Tesla Motors, with Larry & Sergin from google as investors. This will be the future, and Ford,GM etc doesn't stand a chance of buying or destory this company. It's here to stay, and it's the bringing us the future of cars.


Very cool car. I dont know how many people are ready to pony up close to 100k for one though.

01/25/2007 09:52:23 PM · #11
Originally posted by Cam:

Originally posted by terje:

Good documentary! But there is a solution coming, Tesla Motors, with Larry & Sergin from google as investors. This will be the future, and Ford,GM etc doesn't stand a chance of buying or destory this company. It's here to stay, and it's the bringing us the future of cars.


Very cool car. I dont know how many people are ready to pony up close to 100k for one though.


Part of the site says this:

"They're going fast!

Our initial production run of Tesla Roadsters sold out in four months. But it's not too late to get one of your own.

We are now accepting reservations for 2008 model year cars on a first-come, first-serve basis. The sooner you sign up, the sooner you’ll be going fast too."

Begs the question how many were built in the initial production run.
01/25/2007 10:01:11 PM · #12
Consumers killed electric cars, period. If there was a market for them manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to make them. But, drivers, especially American drivers, don't want to be bothered with having to charge a car or less horsepower or shorter ranges.

No, it's just too easy to stop for gas.
01/25/2007 10:16:57 PM · #13
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Consumers killed electric cars, period. If there was a market for them manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to make them. But, drivers, especially American drivers, don't want to be bothered with having to charge a car or less horsepower or shorter ranges.

No, it's just too easy to stop for gas.


I don't buy that exactly. a true elctric maybe but hybrids are very good and the roadster proves you don't have to lose horsepower. Price is the problem I would buy hybrid if it were the same price. cars are to damn expensive as it is I can't afford a premium to go hybrid. too many politicians don't want gas sales to go away to make it happen anytime soon.
01/25/2007 10:28:57 PM · #14
i agree that hybrid is the next best step for now.
just hope price gets lowered to make them attractive enough for mainstream.
01/26/2007 01:16:37 AM · #15
....

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 01:17:02.
01/26/2007 01:38:26 AM · #16
Originally posted by ElGordo:

Electricity still has to be generated and still produces huge amounts of pollution from coal fired power plants. The 'environmentalists' were largely responsible for making clean nuclear power prohibitively expensive. There ain't no free lunch!
As for GM's electric cars: had to have been major problems with the technology they were trying to use. Hybrid electric cars are alive and well.


While burning coal to produce electricity causes pollution, most coal plants are much cleaner than you would think. The pollution produced at the coal plant to generate the electricity required to power a car is still less per mile than a typical IC engine powered car.

The problem with cars that are strictly electric is mostly their limited range and relatively long recharge times. I can easily drive a conventional automobile 300-400 miles before it needs to be refueled and when it does, it takes a matter of minutes to do so. An electric car will be limited to about 200 miles and will then need to spend some hours plugged in.

What I'd like to see is a hybrid that uses a small turbine engine as a generator, for an electric drive car.
01/26/2007 01:41:08 AM · #17
Originally posted by bigalpha:

It's a Damn shame that some people are so greedy, they are willing to sacrifice the good of the planet to make money.


They are called Republicans.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 01:41:27.
01/26/2007 01:43:13 AM · #18
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Electricity still has to be generated and still produces huge amounts of pollution from coal fired power plants. The 'environmentalists' were largely responsible for making clean nuclear power prohibitively expensive. There ain't no free lunch!
As for GM's electric cars: had to have been major problems with the technology they were trying to use. Hybrid electric cars are alive and well.


While burning coal to produce electricity causes pollution, most coal plants are much cleaner than you would think. The pollution produced at the coal plant to generate the electricity required to power a car is still less per mile than a typical IC engine powered car.

The problem with cars that are strictly electric is mostly their limited range and relatively long recharge times. I can easily drive a conventional automobile 300-400 miles before it needs to be refueled and when it does, it takes a matter of minutes to do so. An electric car will be limited to about 200 miles and will then need to spend some hours plugged in.

What I'd like to see is a hybrid that uses a small turbine engine as a generator, for an electric drive car.


Gas turbines are not fuel or themally efficient. SO unless you mean steam turbine like in nuclear power applications your freaking me out!
01/26/2007 01:56:53 AM · #19
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Electricity still has to be generated and still produces huge amounts of pollution from coal fired power plants. The 'environmentalists' were largely responsible for making clean nuclear power prohibitively expensive. There ain't no free lunch!
As for GM's electric cars: had to have been major problems with the technology they were trying to use. Hybrid electric cars are alive and well.


While burning coal to produce electricity causes pollution, most coal plants are much cleaner than you would think. The pollution produced at the coal plant to generate the electricity required to power a car is still less per mile than a typical IC engine powered car.

The problem with cars that are strictly electric is mostly their limited range and relatively long recharge times. I can easily drive a conventional automobile 300-400 miles before it needs to be refueled and when it does, it takes a matter of minutes to do so. An electric car will be limited to about 200 miles and will then need to spend some hours plugged in.

What I'd like to see is a hybrid that uses a small turbine engine as a generator, for an electric drive car.


Gas turbines are not fuel or themally efficient. SO unless you mean steam turbine like in nuclear power applications your freaking me out!


They are more efficient than a conventional IC engine, which is about 20% efficient, at best. A gas turbine would operate in the 30-40% range.

Also, that peak efficiency is at a certain, ideal operating condition. A conventional IC engine in a car is only operated in that ideal condition a small fraction of the time since it's constantly changing speed. A turbine used as a generator could operate in its most efficient all of the time since, it will not be driving the wheels, but only turning a shaft at constant to drive a generator that would charge the car's batteries.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 01:58:00.
01/26/2007 02:02:28 AM · #20
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



They are more efficient than a conventional IC engine, which is about 20% efficient, at best. A gas turbine would operate in the 30-40% range.

Also, that peak efficiency is at a certain, ideal operating condition. A conventional IC engine in a car is only operated in that ideal condition a small fraction of the time since it's constantly changing speed. A turbine used as a generator could operate in its most efficient all of the time since, it will not be driving the wheels, but only turning a shaft at constant to drive a generator that would charge the car's batteries.


I call bullshit! lol sorry i work for Koons Ford so i have to pull this one. CVT's CVT transmisison get the engine up to its optimal speed for fuelefeicincy veruss power and stick it there. As far as the efficiency goes thats not what was said when a million people asked the question "What happened to the turbine powered cars". Im no engineer and im barley able to tune a fuel inejction system. I do side draft carbs most of the time for friends so what can i tell you... not much.
01/26/2007 02:22:53 AM · #21
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:



They are more efficient than a conventional IC engine, which is about 20% efficient, at best. A gas turbine would operate in the 30-40% range.

Also, that peak efficiency is at a certain, ideal operating condition. A conventional IC engine in a car is only operated in that ideal condition a small fraction of the time since it's constantly changing speed. A turbine used as a generator could operate in its most efficient all of the time since, it will not be driving the wheels, but only turning a shaft at constant to drive a generator that would charge the car's batteries.


I call bullshit! lol sorry i work for Koons Ford so i have to pull this one. CVT's CVT transmisison get the engine up to its optimal speed for fuelefeicincy veruss power and stick it there. As far as the efficiency goes thats not what was said when a million people asked the question "What happened to the turbine powered cars". Im no engineer and im barley able to tune a fuel inejction system. I do side draft carbs most of the time for friends so what can i tell you... not much.


OK, so even with a CVT, you still have a powerplant that is maybe 20% efficient vs. a turbine that's in the 30%-40% range. That's also not considering the relatively high mechanical inefficiencies of a CVT.

The turbine cars that Chrysler built back in the '60's were not successful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the car sounded like a vacuum cleaner. It was also direct drive, meaning that the output shaft of the turbine was connected directly to the vehicle's driveline. Turbines operate well if they are run at one speed they don't do well if they are constantly revving up and down.

By coupling the output shaft of any powerplant to a generator, and in turn operating the powerplant at its point of optimum efficiency, that would maximize the efficiency of the vehicle. Using a more efficient powerplant would only increase efficiency.
01/26/2007 10:33:55 AM · #22
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Consumers killed electric cars, period. If there was a market for them manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to make them. But, drivers, especially American drivers, don't want to be bothered with having to charge a car or less horsepower or shorter ranges.

No, it's just too easy to stop for gas.


No way. Have you seen that movie? GM totally killed the electric car on purpose. There was a waiting list to even get into an electric car. In the very end, GM ends up taking back all the leased cars and smashing them into cubes. At one point, this group of people even offered GM over a million dollars to purchase 76 EV1's on the spot. GM didn't take it. All the cars were in perfect running condition. Why would a car manufacturer do that?

Also, If you drove a modern electric car, the new batteries are capable of giving the car around a 300 mile trip on one charge. Granted, not exactly what you want on a vacation; but for 98% of your driving, it is perfect. How often do you burn a whole tank of gas in one day?
01/26/2007 10:50:06 AM · #23
Have a read through this from Dan's blog, of Dan's Data fame.

If you don't know Dan, andf you are a geek, then shame on you! His site is here.

Harry
01/26/2007 10:51:05 AM · #24
Originally posted by bigalpha:

Why would a car manufacturer do that?


The same reason why countries like to dump food ... something to do with prices and profits..

I'm sleepy...can't give a more intelligible reply..
01/26/2007 11:49:06 AM · #25
"Who Killed the Electric Car"

READ THIS OR IGNORE THIS WHOLE THREAD - BECAUSE THIS MOVIE IS A CRIME

Is probably one of the worst films/documentary/editorials to ever be released.

Recently, I saw a discussion filled with a bunch of uneducated people commenting how they would never buy anothe GM product all because they watched this documentary.

It infuriates me because I followed the EV-1 project for years. Did you know the vehicle was once called the "Impact". I was in high school at the time attending a specialized magnet school with a marine biology/environmental science curriculum. I followed the project closely.

We're on this whole anti-American kick, that American car companies are evil, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, it wasn't Toyota or Honda that spent a billion dollars doing a development and feasibility study for an electric car.

The truth of the matter is that the results showed that it was not feasible with the technology at hand. One of the leading issues were the batteries. Battery technology at the time was no where near where it is now. The batteries were large and heavy. Furthermore they degraded over time. The result was that after a few years the entire battery rack would need to be replaced. The cost was approx. $3,000-5,000.

Ask yourself if every 2-4 yrs you'd want to replace your car's engine? This was the reason they were not sold, only leased. The maintenance cost and cycles were unknown. Other issues were range, time to re-charge, etc. These limited the usability.

The cost of manufacturing vehicles is directly related to the quantity of vehicles produced. If GM was selling a million EV-1's the costs would reduce. But if they were only going to sell 10,000-30,000 the economics become much more difficult and costly. Especially when most of the parts are unique to a single platform.

So, did GM kill the electric car? No...GM was the only company to develop and test the feasibility. Some might say they stopped once California eliminated their requirement that 2% of cars have zero emissions. In truth, it's probably more likely that the requirement was laxed in part because the EV-1 showed that technology just wasn't ready for that goal.

Who killed the electric car? You're telling me Toyota and Honda can't build one of their own and sell it? Or could it be that they realized they couldn't produce a feasible model and therefore didn't even venture to try. They went with a weaker concept called "hybrid technology".

So let's fast forward to today? Is the electric car dead!!!!!

Well, battery technology has advanced a LOT in the past few years (mainly due to laptops, cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players that have demanded lighter, more powerful batteries. This has opened the door once again. Don't think GM just dumped the EV-1 off the table and through away all that they learned. They didn't!

GM is now working on a new electric car. The "Volt" this is a prototype with strong intentions of bringing to market. Battery technology has advanced greatly over the years. Furthermore, GM learned a lot from it's EV-1 trials.

This new vehicle will have an onboard gasoline generator. In other words, for your daily commute it is completely electric (charge it at home). But they understand that sometimes you need to go farther. So there is to be an efficient gasoline generator that can re-charge the batteries as you drive thus extending the range.

' . substr('//paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules/ew_filemanager/07images/autos/gm/volt/voltconcept-600.jpg', strrpos('//paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules/ew_filemanager/07images/autos/gm/volt/voltconcept-600.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

More info on the Chevy Volt




Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 10:26:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/05/2020 10:26:07 AM EST.